2011 Relationship Maintenance and Facebook

RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE AND FACEBOOK
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies
School of Professional Studies
Gonzaga University
Under the Supervision of Dr. Heather Crandall
Under the Mentorship of Dr. Kristine Hoover
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies
By
Kelli Elise Kapp
December 2011
RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE AND FACEBOOK 2
ABSTRACT
Research to date on Facebook users has not included part of Generation Y, those born
from 1976 through 1989. This study examined the use of Facebook to maintain relationships to
extend previous work by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and Bryant and
Marmo (2009) whose work served as a lens for comparison. A survey questionnaire (N=215)
was administered to Facebook users to determine their uses for the site, frequency of use, and
perceived closeness of Facebook friends. Results suggested Facebook has become a daily part of
respondent’s lives. Questions regarding Facebook use indicated the number one motivator for
using Facebook is to keep in touch with friends and family. Participants reported using
Facebook has made their relationships mildly stronger. These findings indicated participants use
Facebook in similar ways as reported in previous research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 5
The Importance of the Study 5
Definition of Terms 6
Organization of Remaining Chapters 6
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8

Theoretical Foundation 9
Philosophical Assumptions 11
Social Networking on the Internet 12
Generation Y 14
Understanding Friendship 16
Relationship Maintenance 20
Rationale and Summary 23
CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 25

Scope of the Study 25
Methodology of the Study 26
Ethics, Validity and Reliability 30
Summary 31
CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY 33

Data Analysis 33
Results 33
Discussion 38
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 42
Study Limitations 42
Recommendations for Future Studies 42
Conclusions 43
REFERENCES 44
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 51

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The Importance of the Study
Communication has evolved as accessibility continues to grow with new technologies
changing the way people stay connected. People have multiple modes of communication to
choose from including: telephones, E-mail, instant messaging, text messaging, and social media
websites.
Social media has experienced its own evolution over the past two decades. In 1997, early
social media began with the launch of Sixdegrees.com (Bennett, 2011). Friendster began in
2002 with membership declining in 2008 due to the introduction of Myspace in 2003 and
Facebook in 2004 (Bennett, 2011). 2003 was also the birth of the professional social site
Linkedin (Bennett, 2011). Twitter was introduced to the world in 2006 and Google launched its
own site, Google Plus in 2011 (Bennett, 2011). This is big business.
The number one most visited website in 2011 is Facebook (Smith, 2011). With Facebook
showing no signs of slowing down, there is a tremendous amount of documented research on the
site. One area includes the way college students use the site to maintain relationships. College
students are part of the 70 million tech-savvy people making up Generation Y (Kane, 2011).
With Generation Y’s deep interest in technology, it makes sense to study the way they use the
most visited website on the Internet.
College students are only part of Generation Y. At its widest definition, Generation Y
includes those born from 1976-2002. There are so many other members of this tech-savvy
generation, yet there is no documented research on the way the remaining members of
Generation Y use Facebook to maintain relationships. This study aimed to bridge that research
gap.
Definitions of Terms
Relationship Maintenance: Personal relationships require a certain amount of maintenance
(Wright, 1999). For the purpose of this study, relationship maintenance will be defined by
Wright (1999). Relationship Maintenance refers to the aspects of relating which contribute to
the stability and integrity of relationships and serve to keep them intact including:
interdependence, equity, mutuality of relationship definition, the importance of authenticity, and
the role of a wider network of others in validating and supporting personal relationships (Wright,
1999).
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC): Computer Mediated Communication refers to any
human communication achieved through, or with the help of, computer technology (Thurlow,
Lengel, & Tomic, 2008).
Face to Face Communication (FtF): Communication by senders and receiver in real time,
allowing for body language and facial expression observations (Businessdictionary.com, 2011).
Generation Y: For the purpose of this study, Generation Y is the generation in the United States
referring to those born from 1976 through 2002 (Armour, 2005; Ellis-Christensen, 2011).
Organization of Remaining Chapters
This thesis is organized into five chapters. Chapter two is a review of previous literature.
It includes information on social networking on the Internet, Generation Y, friendship, and
relationship maintenance. The theoretical foundations and philosophical assumptions are
included in this chapter. Chapter two also lists the research objectives for this study. Chapter
three lists the scope and methodology for this study. It explains the study population and
methods used. Chapter four explains the study. It examines, in depth, the survey questionnaire
results, ties in the theoretical foundations, answers the research questions, and compares the
current findings to previous literature. Chapter five is the conclusion. It notes study limitations
and recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
Generation Y, like others, has been shaped by the events, developments, and trends of its
time (McCrindle, 2010). The rise of instant communication technologies made possible through
use of the Internet, such as email, texting, instant messaging, and social networking sites, may
explain the generation’s peer-oriented focus due to the ease of communication they experienced
with them (Davie, 2008). The United States population encompassing Generation Y are those
born from 1976 through 2002. A review of recent studies has provided a depth of knowledge on
relationship maintenance and technology for the latter half of Generation Y, those born since
1990, also referred to as the Net-generation. No recent literature on the first half of Generation
Y relative to relationship maintenance and technology has been conducted.
Many studies have indicated the ability of computer mediated communication (CMC) to
maintain relationships (Dainton & Aylor, 2002; Parks & Floyd, 1996; Stafford, Kline &
Dimmick, 1999). For men and women of the Net-generation, those born between 1990 and the
early 2000s, their identities and relationships have been influenced by the Internet (Clark, Lee &
Boyer, 2007). Recent literature sampling college students born during the aforementioned years,
has defined relationship maintenance as the overwhelming motivator for Facebook use (Sheldon,
2008; Sheldon, 2009). Referring to a variety of behaviors, relationship maintenance includes
actions people use to keep their relationship together (Dindia & Canary, 1993). Relationship
maintenance includes sending messages to friends, communication, getting in touch and staying
in touch with friends (Sheldon, 2008). This recent literature reports college students are
connected with most of their closest friends on Facebook, including former classmates and
childhood friends (Pennington, 2009).

This literature review will begin with the theoretical foundation and philosophical
assumptions for the study. It will then examine social networking on the Internet, Generation Y
as it is defined in birth years and characteristics, friendship, and relationship maintenance.
Finally, it will conclude with a brief summary, rationale, and proposed research questions.
Theoretical Foundation
Overview
This study is based on the theoretical foundations of Social Information Processing
Theory (SIP) and Uses and Gratification Theory (UGT). Walther’s (1992) SIP states the same
relationships formed and maintained face to face can also be achieved through the use of
computer-mediated communication. UGT states technology users are motivated to use a mode
of communication for various reasons by examining what and why.
Social Information Processing Theory
Joe Walther (1992) published a theory which claimed CMC users can adapt to the
restricted medium and use it effectively to develop close relationships. He argued that the
sufficient exchange of social messages and relationship growth achieved by face to face (FtF)
communication could also be achieved by CMC (Walther, 1992). SIP (Walther, 1992), suggests
that people take advantage of whatever information is available within a CMC environment to
form impressions, despite the absence of the nonverbal cues that typically drive impressions in
offline communication (Tong, Van Der Heide & Langwell, 2008). SIP assumes communicators
will use whatever social information is available and adjust messages accordingly in order to
acquire and provide information needed to develop impressions and relationships (Ramirez &
Zhang, 2007). In text-based environments, communicators draw upon language features such as
style, word choice, and content in forming social connections (Ramirez & Zhang, 2007).
Initially relationship formation would take longer using CMC instead of FtF
communication, but as messages continue to accumulate, relationship maintenance using CMC
should show similar levels of development to FtF communication (Ramirez & Zhang, 2007).
Research has shown support for SIP in numerous CMC contexts (Chidambaram, 1996; Parks &
Roberts, 1998; Utz, 2000; Walther, 1993; Walther & Burgoon, 1992). Additionally, other
studies have shown relationships formed through CMC exceeded the level of development
achieved through face-to-face interaction (Walther, 1996).
Uses and Gratification Theory
Uses and gratification theory might be well suited to study the Internet (Newhagen &
Rafaeli, 1996). This theory explains how different people use the same media messages for
different purposes to satisfy their psychological and social needs and achieve their goals (Katz,
1959). UGT looks at what people do with media and why (Sheldon & Honeycutt, 2008). With
origins in the 1940s, researchers became interested in why audiences engaged in various forms
of media behavior (Berelson, 1949). Specifically, the theory referred to a desire to know more
about an audience and an awareness of individual differences regarding their media use
(McQuail, 1984).
According to UGT, audiences differ in the gratifications they seek from mass media
(Sheldon, 2008). What needs and gratifications people are looking for can be grouped into the
following: diversion, personal relationship, personal identity, and surveillance (McQuail,
Blumler, & Brown, 1972). Researchers constantly add new gratifications related to Internet use
(Sheldon & Honeycutt, 2008). Generally, UGT focuses on motives for media use, factors that
influence motives, and outcomes from media related behavior (Sheldon, 2008). According to
Ruggiero (2000) the Internet posses at least three attributes not commonly associated with
traditional media: interactivity, demassification, and asynchroncity. Many researchers see the
Internet as a continuum between mass communication and interpersonal communication
(Ruggiero, 2000).
Internet Gratifications
Uses and gratifications theory has been applied extensively in a variety of disciplines and
forms of mediated communication (Sheldon & Honeycutt, 2008). Research by Parker and Plank
(2001) has shown that exploration and entertainment were the primary motivations for Internet
use. Others report people use computers to satisfy needs traditionally fulfilled by media, such as
passing time and gathering information (Flaherty, Pearce, & Rubin, 1998). Additionally,
avoiding loneliness, maintaining relationships, and escaping from everyday problems were found
as motivators by Flanagin and Metzger (2001) and Parker and Plank (2001). Facebook studies
have shown the largest portion of college students surveyed used the site to maintain
relationships with people they know (Coley, 2006; Sheldon, 2008).
Philosophical Assumptions
Philosopher and theologian, Martin Buber said, “In the beginning is the relation,” and
“The relation is the cradle of life” (1958, p.60). People are most fully human when they are in
relation to others, living for others and for themselves (Buber, 1958). Buber’s work is part of the
phenomenological tradition in the field of communication theory. The phenomenological
tradition places emphasis on people’s perceptions and interpretations of their own experience
(Griffin, 2009). Psychologist Carl Rogers (1961) took a phenomenological approach to healthy
relationships and believed dialogue was within reach when both people seek it as long as three
conditions are fulfilled:
1. Congruence between our words and who we generally are.

2. Unconditional positive regard for the other person.
3. Listening with empathetic understanding.
Rogers (1961) stated fulfilling these communications criteria will lead to healthier
relationships. Relationships require interdependence; each person in the relationship feels a
sense of personhood (Caputo, Hazel, McMahon, & Dannels, 2002). People in relationships can
influence and be influenced, help and be helped by the other (Caputo et al, 2002). Relational
development requires a sense of confirmation (Caputo et al, 2002). As Buber (1965) stated,
people need confirmation. Relationship maintenance requires this reciprocal confirmation and
social media likely aids in the process.
Social Networking on the Internet
The ability to network socially through the Internet exists through a variety of platforms
such as: chat rooms, blogs, email, and social network sites (Pennington, 2009). Social
networking sites are becoming an important part of the social fabric of young people’s social
lives and a critical component of their everyday online activities (Steinfield & Lampe, 2009).
Social networking sites allow users to find others with shared interests, experience support
connections, and access the networks of their friends and contacts allowing for a larger and more
heterogeneous network (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Donath & Boyd, 2004). Scholars suggest social
networking may assist users in maintaining relationships with more individuals (Donath, 2007;
Donath & Boyd, 2004). Research conducted by Walther and Boyd (2002) found individuals
were validated by having larger networks due to the sheer number of their connections. Baym
and Lin (2004) discovered their research participants used the Internet to maintain social
networks, but the primary source of relationship maintenance was still face-to-face
communication. Since then, researchers have found a much heavier reliance on computer-
mediated communication as a way to communicate (Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, & Smallwood,
2006; Ellison et al, 2007).
Defining Social Network Sites
Social networking began its influence in the late 1990s reaching critical mass soon after
2003 when the current major social network sites were launched (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Two
early social network sites have reached unprecedented levels of popularity, Myspace and
Facebook (Pennington, 2009). According to Boyd and Ellison (2007) social network sites enable
individuals to do the following: construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded
system, articulate a list of other users with whom they are connected, and view their list of
connections and those made by others within the system. Profiles typically consist of the similar
information: a picture of the user, the user’s name, likes and dislikes, and a list of other users
they’ve connected to, which are referred to as “friends” on both Myspace and Facebook
(Pennington, 2009). Social network sites do not force individuals into immediate communicative
situations but rather allow them to provide information about themselves as well as connect and
make comments to friends and strangers through wall posts or individual chat options
(Pennington, 2009).
Facebook
Facebook continues to grow at astonishing rates. As of July 2010, Facebook had just
over 500 million active users worldwide, currently Fall 2011, Facebook has more than 800
million users, with 350 million users also connected on their mobile device (Facebook Statistics,
2011). More than 50% of Facebook users log in every single day and have, on average, 130
friends (Facebook Statistics, 2011). Facebook has a strong global reach, is available in 70
languages, and 75% of users are outside the United States (Facebook Statistics, 2011). Facebook
was launched in 2004 by Harvard student, Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook Statistics, 2011).
Originally, the site was closed meaning it was only accessible with a college email address for
specific campuses (Facebook Statistics, 2011). The site went public allowing anyone with a
valid email address to join in September 2006 (Facebook Statistics, 2011). Because of
Facebook’s continuing dominant rise among social network sites and the Internet in general, it
makes it ideal to study.
Livingstone (2008) sited the desire to belong to a community as a reason many youth
become involved in social network sites, and given its popularity, Facebook is the site of choice.
Research conducted by Tong, Van Der Heide, Langwell, and Walther (2008) found a contrast
between the number of friends a user has in real life, usually around a dozen, to the high number
of online friends, usually in the hundreds. It is likely participants are creating more but weaker
ties as a way to elevate their perceived attractiveness and social capital to the community (Tong
et al., 2008). A survey conducted at Michigan State University by Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield
(2006) found 95% of college students were Facebook users. The respondents reported most of
their Facebook interaction was with people they interacted with in person (Lampe et al., 2006)
contradicting Bryant et al (2006) who reported people communicate with separate networks
online and offline.
This current research shows online social networking is becoming an integral part in the
social fabric of our lives. Social network sites do not force users to interact, but rather allow
them to share personal information with those they choose to connect with. Facebook has and
continues to grow at astonishing rates outside its original university setting giving many different
users the opportunity to interact, form, and maintain relationships online.
Generation Y
Generations in the United States are determined by the United States Population
Reference Bureau (Carlson, 2009). Demographers and the Bureau rarely agree on exact dates.
Generation Y, also known as the Millennium Generation, Millenials, and Net Generation
represents the United States population born after Generation X (Cheese, 2008; Shapira, 2008;
Strauss & Howe, 1992). Definitions of the time frame of Generation Y are vague (Ellis-
Christensen, 2011). Birth year ranges are as wide as 1976-2000 (Ellis-Christensen, 2011). Some
commentators report Generation Y to be those born between 1976-1994 (French, 2005; Gardner,
2006), while others report Generation Y is comprised of those born between 1977-2002
(Armour, 2005) or 1980-1995 (Safer, 2009).
This group is the first to come to age just as the Internet began to flourish (Ellis-
Christensen, 2011). They are familiar, usually from childhood, with Internet surfing, cell
phones, electronic organizers, cable television and other things which would be considered
novelties by those born before (Ellis-Christensen, 2011). The rise of instant communication and
social network sites, like Facebook, may offer an explanation for the generation’s reputation for
being peer-oriented with the ease of communication through technology (Davie, 2008).
Research conducted by Junco and Mastrodicasa (2007) on college students born between
1982-1992 and their personality profiles, found they are frequently in touch with their parents
and use the Internet more. A survey of more than 7,000 college students found 97% owned a
computer and 94% owned a cell phone (Junco & Mastrodicasa, 2007). The respondents on
average spoke to their parents 1.5 times a day and included a wide range of topics (Junco &
Mastrodicasa, 2007).
Generation Y offers broad and vague birth year ranges for those it encompasses. What
previous research does agree on is this generation has been raised with technology. Given this
generation at its widest range spans more than a 20 year gap, it is possible both parent and child
could be part of the same generation. While current research has examined the latter half of this
generation, those born from 1990-2002, no research was discovered on those born from 1976-
1989.
Understanding Friendship
Communication skills can be divided into two relationally-oriented classifications:
affective communication and instrumental communication (Finn & Powers, 2002). These skills
have been found to have value in relationships (Finn & Powers, 2002). Affective
communication skills are those that impact the inner, emotional aspects of relationships and
include comforting, conflict management and ego support (Finn & Powers, 2002). Instrumental
communication skills help manage the communication between partners and relate to the
external aspects that are part of the affective life of relationships (Finn & Powers, 2002).
Instrumental communication involves persuasive, conversational, and narrative communication
(Finn & Powers, 2002). Floyd (2009) refers to instrumental communication as the type of
communication used to discuss mundane tasks. A study conducted by Finn and Powers (2002)
examined college students and the importance of these two communication skills according to
different types of relationships. Their findings report instrumental communication is important
in all types of relationships (Finn & Powers, 2002). They also reported affective communication
skills have value in developing relationships, friendships, and close relationships, but do not
show value in relationships which are not expected to progress, such as acquaintances (Finn &
Powers, 2002). Understanding relational communication shows a heuristic importance in
relational movement, development, and maintenance.

Friendships are the most prevalent type of relationship (Blieszner & Adams, 1992).
Since this study examined maintenance strategies across multiple relationships, friendship
becomes an important aspect to understand. Friendships serve various social functions such as:
acquiring new skills and providing a sense of support, care, companionship, emotional
acceptance, connectedness, inclusion, affiliation, satisfaction, and belonging that is helpful in
achieving one’s goals (Burleson & Samter, 1994). Friendships provide utilitarian benefits,
helping each other achieve goals, and self-reverent benefits, affirmation of one’s identity,
uniqueness, and self-worth (Wright, 1984). Maintaining friendships can be beneficial for both
tangible and psychological purposes (Bryant & Marmo, 2009).
Friendship can be explained in numerous ways. Friends are people with whom one
engages in shared activities with (Argyle & Furnham, 1983). According to Hays (1984),
friendship involves companionship, consideration, communication, and affection. Lea (1989)
explains friendship as a relationship involving voluntary or unconstrained interaction where
participants respond to one another. According to Bryant and Marmo (2009), voluntary
interaction can be used to differentiate friends from relationships in which partners are obligated
to interact. Some people refer to their entire network as friends while others reserve the term for
only close relationships (Bryant & Marmo, 2009).
Examining Friendship
Relationships can exist in many different forms: friends, family members, acquaintances,
and romantic partners (Bryant & Marmo, 2009). Bryant and Marmo (2009) note while most of
the aforementioned relationships can be easily separated, it is crucial to understand and explain
the different types of friendship. Casual friendships are those in the early stages of relationship
development (Bryant & Marmo, 2009). Many relationships never progress past this level,
however, a deeper relationship can be developed if both partners wish to do so (Bryant &
Marmo, 2009). Hays (1989) reported casual friendships are unstable and vulnerable to erosion
because the friendship does not have a strong foundation. This base does not exist due to the
nature of conversation between casual friends; it is more often factual and superficial topics
without personal information (Berger & Roloff, 1982). Casual friendships can be very beneficial
to maintain because they provide social capital and opportunities to network (Bryant & Marmo,
2009).
While people generally maintain a large network of casual friendships, they usually have
a small core of close friendships that are distinguished from others (Bryant & Marmo, 2009).
These friends cannot be replaced easily and hold special position in each other’s lives (Reardon,
1987). Close friendships often involve terms and phrases such as: love, trust, commitment,
caring, stability and significant (Berscheid & Peplau, 1983). Close friendships include frequent
interaction, high levels of self-disclosure, intimacy, involvement, and interdependence (Sillars &
Scott, 1983). Close relationships are held in high esteem and significantly impact each other’s
lives (Bryant & Marmo, 2009). Close friendships demonstrate concern for long term
relationship outcomes (Bryant & Marmo, 2009).
The strategies used to maintain friendships differ depending on the type and nature of the
relationship (Bryant & Marmo, 2009). According to Bryant and Marmo (2009), studies aiming
to understand relationship maintenance should consider the different forms of relationships,
especially friendships, as unique variables by specifically studying how close and casual
friendships differ in regard to relational maintenance strategies and expectations.
Online Friendship
Online social networking sites support the maintenance of existing social ties and the
formation of new connections (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Social networking sites,
including Facebook, use the term “friend” to explain connections thus creating interest in
studying friendships online (Steinfield & Lampe, 2009). Some social networking sites offer a
way to differentiate between their friends (Steinfield & Lampe, 2009). In December 2007,
Facebook introduced a feature which enabled users to group friends into categories such as
acquaintances, best friends, coworkers, romantic partners, and family but all are still classified as
“friends” (Steinfield & Lampe, 2009). Boyd (2006) notes a wide range of reasons for people
friending each other, and thus disputes the notion that users view “friends” as actual friends.
According to Beer (2008), social networking sites may impact what friendship means, how it is
understood, and how it is played out.
Steinfield and Lampe (2009), note an important motivation for online friending. The
costs of adding a friend are low and the social costs of rejecting a friend request can be high, so
many users have large numbers of “friends” (Steinfield & Lampe, 2009). Stern and Taylor’s
(2007) research agrees, noting student survey respondents did not deny Facebook friend requests
because being an online friend doesn’t mean much. Only 17% reported never connecting with a
person they did not know (Stern & Taylor, 2007). Their respondents also indicated denying a
friend request would make them mean or hurtful (Stern & Taylor, 2007).
Some research has expressed concern for the large number of connections. Boyd (2006)
worries upcoming generations will not be able to differentiate between being a friend and being
friended online. Rosen (2007) suggests social networking sites encourage users to collect as
many friends as possible. Clemmitt (2006) agrees stating Facebook drives quantity over quality
in friendships. The fact that users generally have anywhere from dozens to hundreds of online
friends suggests these relationships are more casual friendships (Steinfield & Lampe, 2009).
Steinfield and Lampe (2009) suggest it is important to probe users’ conceptions of friendship
online to discover how many of their connections are viewed as actual friends.
In a 2009 study examining college students and Facebook, Steinfield and Lampe reported
respondents listed one-third of their Facebook friends are actual friends. Bryant and Marmo
(2009) also examined college students and Facebook friends by conducting focus groups. They
noted participants were connected to their close friends on Facebook, but the majority of their
online friends were casual friends, acquaintances, and outsiders (Bryant & Marmo, 2009).
Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe’s (2007) research on college students and Facebook also reports
users have more Facebook interaction with people whom they share an offline connection with
suggesting students use Facebook to maintain offline relationships and solidify acquaintances.
Research undeniably shows the personal benefits of friendship. Relationships can vary in
degree of intimacy and the way they are maintained. It also suggests online relationship
maintenance can be a useful tool. In relation to Facebook, previous studies surveying college
students show the site is used to maintain offline relationships and keep in contact with
acquaintances. This body of research highlights how college students use Facebook to maintain
both offline and online relationships. It does not show whether Facebook remains a viable tool
for maintaining friendship with close friends and acquaintances for those outside the university
setting.
Relationship Maintenance
Over the past decade, relational maintenance remains one of the most researched areas
(Rabby, 2007). Communication scholars have suggested the process of relationship maintenance
is crucial to relational satisfaction and the survival of a relationship (Ayers, 1983; Bell, Daly, &
Gonzalez, 1987; Canary & Stafford, 1994; Dainton, Zelley, & Langan, 2003) with Canary and
Stafford (1994) explaining without maintenance behaviors a relationship will deteriorate.
Relational maintenance is a dynamic process which requires persistent communication between
partners (Dindia, 2003). The process of relationship maintenance involves performing symbolic
behaviors that communicate a person’s desire to continue the relationship, often referred to as
maintenance strategies (Bryant & Marmo, 2009). People spend more time maintaining
relationships than developing them (Duck, 1998). Computer-mediated communication appears
to be valuable to maintain relationships developed face-to-face (Rabby & Walther, 2003; Wright,
2002) in addition to relationships formed online (Stafford, Kline, & Dimmick, 1999; Parks &
Floyd, 1996).
Relationship Maintenance and Computer-Mediated Communication
Researchers have recently begun to examine the role of computer-mediated
communication and online relationship maintenance (Joinson, 2001; Rabby & Walther, 2003;
Ramirez & Broneck, 2003; Wright, 2004). Social networking sites offer advantages over
traditional means of maintaining relationships (Wright, Craig, Cunningham, Igiel, & Ploeger,
2008). Facebook and other social networking sites offer a cheap and convenient way to
communicate messages to a large network of individuals (Wright et al., 2008). People use the
Internet to stay in touch or keep up with activities of long-term friends and acquaintances
(Cummings, Lee, & Kraut, 2006). Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe (2007) found Facebook
specifically may help college students maintain or accrue social capital in the midst of life
changes. Users post updates which help their friends stay informed on their lives (Wright et al,
2008).
Online relationship maintenance behaviors have been examined by scholars. Stafford
and Canary (1991) found five maintenance behaviors used to maintain romantic relationships:
positivity, openness, assurances, social networks and shared tasks. This served as a basis for
Canary, Stafford, Hause and Wallace (1993) to examine whether these behaviors were applicable
to other relationships by asking college students to describe how they maintain different personal
relationships. Canary et al. (1993) found ten strategies used by college students to maintain
relationships: positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, shared tasks, joint activities,
cards, letters and calls, avoidance, antisocial behavior, and humor. Bryant and Marmo (2009)
narrowed the focus again by examining how college students utilize Facebook to maintain
relationships, which has been found to be the most common motivator for Facebook use (Park,
Jin, & Jin, 2009; Sheldon, 2008; Sheldon, 2009). They found eleven total maintenance strategies
among five different relationship types (Bryant & Marmo, 2009).
Bryant and Marmo (2009) found participants maintained relationships with close friends,
casual friends, acquaintances, romantic partners and interests, and outsiders on Facebook by
using the following strategies: positivity, openness, assurances, social networks, shared tasks,
joint activities, cards, letters and calls, avoidance, antisocial behavior, humor, and surveillance.
Surveillance, as previously described by Uses and Gratifications Theory, has been found to be a
prominent Facebook use (Bryant, 2008; Lampe et al, 2006). This concept of being able to watch
friends on Facebook and keep track of their activities without engaging in one-on-one
communication was found to be conducive for the addition of surveillance as a maintenance
strategy (Bryant & Marmo, 2009).
Social network sites offer some advantages to their users in regards to relationship
maintenance. Relationship maintenance has been found by this previous research as the number
one reason for Facebook use, but it has not examined whether Facebook users feel the quality of
their relationships have suffered.
Rationale and Summary
This literature review has examined social networking on the Internet, explained the
Facebook phenomenon, reviewed the benefits of friendship, and explained relationship
maintenance. The literature highlights how the Net-generation, born from 1990-2002, uses
Facebook to maintain their friendships. This research shows they use Facebook more to
maintain and strengthen past and current friendships and less to meet new people. By defining
Generation Y, it is evident recent studies on Facebook use and relationship maintenance have
only examined the latter half of this group. Current literature provides a wealth of information
on those born from 1990-2002; it does not provide studies on the earlier half of Generation Y,
those born from 1976-1989. Generation Y encompasses a broad range of age groups. Given the
continued emergence and integration of technology in everyday life, it is important to understand
how it is being used. The proposed study aims to examine the way the elders of Generation Y
maintain relationships on Facebook. By conducting a survey of Facebook users born from 1976-
1989, the research intends to answer the following questions:
RQ1: Do Facebook users born from 1976-1989 use the site to maintain relationships?
RQ2: What relationship maintenance behaviors are commonly performed on Facebook?
RQ3: Has the use of Facebook affected the way the early half of Generation Y maintains
friendships?
RQ4: Has the frequency of offline communication been replaced by online
communication through Facebook for this portion of Generation Y?

RQ5: Has this online communication affected the perceived quality of relationships for
the early half of Generation Y?
RQ6: How does relationship maintenance for the latter half of Generation Y compare to
previous research on the early half of Generation Y?

CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Scope of the Study
The Problem and Purpose
The idea for this study emerged from two directions. First, the researcher’s personal
experience maintaining relationships through the use of technology, including personal,
professional, and academic relationships, sparked the initial and vested interest in the topic.
Upon deeper reflection, given Facebook’s continued growth and popularity, it became the
apparent choice of study. Second, after reviewing current research in the field of relationship
maintenance and Facebook use, the only relevant studies were conducted with college students
as the subjects.
This vast research on how specific groups of college students, part of Generation Y
known as the Net-generation, use Facebook to maintain relationships sparked the question: Does
the other half of this generation use Facebook in the same way? Therefore, the scope of this
study examined the way the elders of Generation Y, those born from 1976-1989, use Facebook
to maintain relationships. Using previous studies from Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington
(2009), and Bryant and Marmo (2009) as a guide, this study used previous work on college
students and replicated it to see if it applied to a pilot study of subjects born from 1976-1989.
The principle in using a pilot study test allowed for replicating the measure of other
researchers (Neuman, 2006). In this case, some questions were duplicated verbatim from
Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and Bryant and Marmo (2009), while other
questions in their studies were revised making them open ended and more appropriate for the
surveyed participants. The studies conducted by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington
(2009), and Bryant and Marmo (2009) all examined relationship maintenance and Facebook use
by college students. The intended accomplishments of this study suggested duplicating and
building on this previous research.
Methodology of the Study
Overview
The method for this study was an Internet based survey. An online survey was designed
using the website, Survey Pirate. Web-based surveys offer the advantage of being fast and
inexpensive (Neuman, 2006). They offer great flexibility in design and can be conducted in a
matter of hours (Neuman, 2006). The disadvantages of a web-based survey include unequal
access to the Internet, protecting respondents’ online security, and software compatibility issues
(Neuman, 2006). These disadvantages were considered and resolved by the following: all survey
participants already have Internet access given they were identified by their current use of the
Internet, a secure website was chosen to execute the survey, and the chosen website is
compatible with a variety of platforms and Internet browsers.
Survey participation was completely voluntary. All respondents were current Facebook
users. A quantitative approach was used to answer the current study’s research questions and
compare the findings to those of past studies conducted by Steinfield and Lampe (2009),
Pennington (2009), and Bryant and Marmo (2009). Respondents were first asked a qualifying
question defining the year they were born. If they met the target demographic they were
instructed to continue. If they did not meet this initial qualifier, they were thanked for their time
and dismissed.
Study Population
Survey researchers sample many respondents who answer the same questions about a
number of variables (Neuman, 2006). In order to find survey participants, a snowball sample
was used. Snowball sampling, also referred to as network, chain referral, or reputational
sampling, is a method for selecting the cases in a network (Neuman, 2006). It is a multistage
technique beginning with a few people and spreading out to various links connected to the
original participants (Neuman, 2006). The crucial feature is each person is connected with
another through a direct or indirect linkage (Neuman, 2006). This does not mean each
participant directly knows or interacts with every other person, but rather taken as a whole they
are an interconnected web of linkages (Neuman, 2006).
The initial survey invitations were sent to the researcher’s 756 Facebook friends.
Although not all of those people met the survey demographic, they were asked and encouraged
to post the survey link on their own Facebook wall and invite their network to participate, and
the process continued. Snowball sampling is a useful tool for social researchers interested in an
interconnected network of people (Neuman, 2006).
Design
This study uses a cross-sectional, explanatory, quantitative survey approach. Surveys
including Likert measures, produce information that is inherently statistical in nature (Groves,
1996). Surveys are appropriate for research questions regarding self-reported beliefs or
behaviors (Neuman, 2006). This study was interested in discovering participants’ behavior,
attitudes, beliefs, and opinions on Facebook use and relationship maintenance. Given the nature
of information desired in this study, survey questionnaire was an appropriate design instrument.
The survey consisted of 15 questions. All questions were standard format, meaning they
did not offer a neutral answer or an “I don’t know” response. Participants were required to
choose the best possible answer. 2 of the questions were open-ended questions, allowing
participants to write in their own response; 13 questions were closed-ended questions with a
fixed set of answers for the participants to choose from, including some scaled questions. A
copy of the survey can be found as Appendix A.
Measures
The survey questionnaire sought to establish a number of measures. First, establishing
basic demographics of birth year and gender the instrument moved into questions regarding the
various forms of communication respondents use to keep in contact with their friends. The
survey asked respondents to disclose how many close friends they have and the most common
communication tool they use to keep in contact with their network. In regards to Facebook, the
survey questionnaire asked how long respondents had been a member, how often they logged
into the site, how many of their close friends were also Facebook friends, and what forms of
connections made up their Facebook social network. Finally the survey questionnaire asked
respondents to report their motivation for using Facebook, the actions they perform on the
website, and if they believe the quality of their relationships has been affected by the use of
Facebook. The final screen offered an optional opportunity to write freely any additional
information or comments respondents wished to share about Facebook and relationship
maintenance.
This study’s research questions were addressed by asking the following survey questions.
RQ1: Do Facebook users born from 1976-1989 use the site to maintain relationships?
Participants were asked how they keep in contact with their close friends allowing for
multiple responses including face to face communication, telephone, texting, email, or instant
messaging, and Facebook.
RQ2: What relationship maintenance behaviors are commonly performed on Facebook?

Participants were asked to choose from 10 relationship maintenance behaviors they
perform on Facebook. They were instructed to choose all that apply.
RQ3: Has the use of Facebook affected the way the early half of Generation Y maintains
friendships?
Participants were asked which mode of communication they use the most and which they
use the least. Their options were: face to face, telephone, texting, email, or instant messaging,
and Facebook.
RQ4: Has the frequency of offline communication been replaced by online
communication through Facebook for this portion of Generation Y?
Participants were asked about the frequency of their Facebook use, who their Facebook
friends are, and if all of their close friends are members of their Facebook friends. In
conjunction with this information and the previous information about the frequency of chosen
communication modes, the question can be answered.
RQ5: Has this online communication affected the perceived quality of relationships for
the early half of Generation Y?
Participants were specifically asked if they believe their relationships are stronger by
using Facebook. Their responses were indicated by a Likert scale.
RQ6: How does relationship maintenance for the latter half of Generation Y compare to
previous research on the early half of Generation Y?
Results from this current study of participants born from 1976-1989 were compared to
the findings of Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and Bryant and Marmo’s
(2009) results on surveyed college students.
Data Collection
The survey was conducted and data was collected using the web-based survey tool,
Survey Pirate. Data was collected by using a web-based link posted on Facebook to access the
survey. A Facebook invitation was created with a link to the survey with the researcher’s 756
Facebook friends invited. Although all those invited did not meet the study demographic, they
were all asked to invite their networks as well, achieving the snowball effect. The survey
questionnaire remained open for one week. All participants were anonymous. Because data
collection was performed on a secure web-based, password protected system, only the researcher
had access and the credentials to retrieve the results and reports.
Ethics, Validity and Reliability
Research Ethics Overview
Research ethics concerns what is right and wrong while conducting research (Rubin,
Rubin, Haridakis, & Piele, 2010). All research participants provided their informed consent by
actively choosing to participate in a completely voluntary survey. In order to become a survey
participant, respondents had to follow a posted Facebook link to the web-based survey
questionnaire where they were reminded their participation was voluntary and confidential.
Survey participants were completely anonymous. Even the researcher was unaware of
participants’ identities. While respondents were not informed of the research questions being
evaluated by their responses, they were informed the topic of research was relationship
maintenance and Facebook use.
Validity
Measurement validity refers to how well the conceptual and operational measures blend
with each other (Neuman, 2006). This study relied on previously valid measures by duplicating
and blending research by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and Bryant and
Marmo (2009). Using their concurrent measures addressing college students, or the youngest
half of Generation Y, this study measured the elders of Generation Y according to the same
variables. This study is a replication study of previous research, adapting the previously
validated instruments.
Reliability
Reliability refers to a study’s dependability or consistency (Neuman, 2006). It suggests
repeated or recurring results under similar conditions (Neuman, 2006). This study used
representative reliability, which is reliability across subpopulations or groups of people
(Neuman, 2006). A subpopulation analysis was used due to testing the other half of the
population of Generation Y previous research did not address. In addition, equivalence
reliability was addressed by using multiple indicators, or measuring the same construct in
multiple survey questions (Neuman, 2006).
This survey questionnaire was a pilot study. Pilot study’s can improve reliability by
using a pilot version to measure first (Neuman, 2006). This pilot study replicated the measures
other researchers have used in analyzing relationship maintenance and Facebook. By building
upon previous research by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and Bryant and
Marmo (2009), the quality of the measure can improve over time.
Summary
The focus of this study emerged from the researcher’s initial interest in how people
communicate online compared to offline. After examining this topic, relationship maintenance
became the lens for study. Facebook as an online communication tool, has had stunning growth.
With members almost doubling thus far in 2011, it became the clear front runner for studying a
social networking site. Previous work by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and
Bryant and Marmo (2009) used survey questionnaires and focus groups to examine the way
college students maintain relationships on Facebook. Pennington (2009) also used a survey
questionnaire and a snowball sample to study the youngest members of Generation Y. This
study relied heavily on that previous work by duplicating the questions, repeating the method of
study and sampling method to discover whether or not those finding also apply to the older
members of Generation Y.
CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY
Introduction
This study examined the way those born from 1976-1989 use Facebook to maintain
relationships and compared it to previous work by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington
(2009), and Bryant and Marmo (2009). The study was performed using the online survey
website, Survey Pirate. The study involved a 15 question survey questionnaire comprised of 2
open-ended questions and 13 closed questions. The link to the survey was posted on Facebook
originally available on the researcher’s wall and in an event invite to the researcher’s 756
Facebook friends. The original 756 invited participants were encouraged to participate in the
anonymous survey if they met the demographic, and also to share the link on their walls and
invite their friends to participate in the study. The event snowballed into 1292 Facebook users
invited. Of those invited, 215 people born between 1976-1989 chose to complete the survey.
The respondents included 175 females and 40 males. The survey link was available and data
was collected for one week.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was two-fold based on the type of questions asked. For the 13 closed-
ended questions, the Survey Pirate questionnaire software generated descriptive results in the
form of bar graphs for each question. The 2 open-ended questions were reported by Survey
Pirate in a text-based table. These responses were categorized into larger groups according to
previous research conducted by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and Bryant and
Marmo (2009). After answering this study’s research questions, these descriptive results were
compared to the previous works listed above.
Results
Facebook Use to Maintain Relationships
The first research question in this study asked if Facebook users born from 1976-1989
use the site to maintain relationships. According to SIP, the sufficient communication exchanges
can be performed using FtF communication and CMC. Respondents were able to select multiple
options to answer this question.
Table 1
Modes of Communication Used to Maintain Relationships
Communication Mode Respondents Reporting %
Text messaging, Email or 205 95

Instant Messaging
Facebook 198 92
Face to Face 186 87
Telephone 172 80
Relationship Maintenance Behaviors on Facebook
Keeping UGT in mind, the second research question sought to discover what relationship
maintenance behaviors and motivators for use are commonly performed on Facebook by the
respondents. Respondents were able to answer this question with multiple responses.
Table 2
Relationship Maintenance Behaviors Performed on Facebook
Maintenance Behavior Respondents Reporting %
Keep in touch with friends and 204 95

family
Be part of the information 141 66
loop
Make plans with friends 140 65
Surveillance: Track people 137 64
For distraction or 135 63

procrastination
Invite people to parties or 123 57
gatherings
Source of information: email, 73 34
phone numbers, addresses
Play games 55 26
Meet new friends 17 8
Flirt or find new love interests 9 4
Respondents were also asked an open-ended question and instructed to write in the
number one reason they use Facebook. Their responses were categorized to better understand
the number one motivator. The number one answer was reported by 89% of respondents who
stated keeping in touch is the primary reason they use Facebook.
Effects of Facebook and Friendship
The third question this study aimed to answer was whether the use of Facebook affected
the way those born from 1976-1989 maintained friendships. In order to explore this topic,
respondents were asked which form of communication they use the most and which they use the
least. While Facebook seems to be used by respondents, it has not replaced other forms of
technology used by surveyed participants. However, respondents did report using CMC to
maintain relationships. These findings comply with SIP showing relationships can be
maintained through FtF or CMC.
Table 3
Most Used Mode of Communication

Text Messaging, Email or 129 60

Instant Messaging
Telephone 48 22
Facebook 30 14
Face to Face 8 4
Table 4
Least Used Mode of Communication
Telephone 92 43
Face to Face 52 24
Facebook 52 24
Text messaging, Email or 19 9

Instant Messaging
Offline and Online Communication
Research question four asked if the frequency of offline communication has been
replaced by online communication through Facebook for this portion of Generation Y. 91% of
those surveyed stated they’ve been a member of Facebook for at least 2 years. 51% of
participants have been a member of the site for more than 3 years. 93% of respondents admitted
to logging on to Facebook every single day.
Since people spend so much time on Facebook, this survey wanted to see who
respondents are connected with. This question allowed for multiple answers.
Table 5
Facebook Friends
Connection Respondents Reporting %
Close Friends and Relatives 207 96
Casual Friends: Those you 205 95

interact with on occasion
Acquaintances: Those you met 169 79
once or interact with rarely
Romantic Partners and 110 51
Interests: Past and current
Outsiders: People you do not 26 12
like or do not know
Respondents reported large Facebook networks. 74% of respondents said they have more
than 201 Facebook friends. Respondents were also asked about their personal close friendships.
When asked how many close friends they have, 33% of respondents said they have 3 to 5 close
friends and 30% of participants answered 6 to 9. 61% of those surveyed said all of their close
friends are also Facebook friends, while 27% said most were. These results show Facebook has
become part of respondents daily lives and keeps them connected with the majority of their close
friends.
Relationship Quality
The fifth research question asked participants directly if this online communication
affected the perceived quality of their relationships. The question read: how do you feel the
quality of your relationships has been affected by using Facebook? The response choices were:
they are significantly stronger, they are slightly stronger, they are slightly weaker, and they are
significantly weaker.
Table 6
Relationship Quality through Facebook Use

Relationship Quality Respondents Reporting %
Significantly Stronger 30 14
Mildly Stronger 162 75
Mildly Weaker 21 10
Significantly Weaker 2 1
The responses were overwhelmingly positive. The majority of those surveyed see a
benefit to their relationships. These results are in conjunction with what this survey found as the
primary motivator for Facebook use: keeping in contact with friends and family. These findings
are also in congruence with SIP. Respondent’s feel they can develop and maintain relationships
through the use of CMC.
Discussion
The final research question in this study asked how these findings compare to previous
work on the early half of Generation Y by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and
Bryant and Marmo (2009) to determine if any conclusions can be drawn between relationship
maintenance and Facebook for Generation Y as a whole.
Facebook Use to Maintain Relationships
Facebook began as a site strictly for college students (Facebook Statistics, 2011).
Previous research by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and Bryant and Marmo
(2009) has shown college students use the site to maintain relationships. In September 2005, the
site expanded to offer membership to high school students (Facebook Statistics, 2011). The
original target audience for Facebook was the early members of Generation Y.
Since the site opened to offer membership to anyone in September 2006, new
membership has exploded, doubling in size in the first three months of open registration. 45% of
United States Facebook members are age 26 or older (Smith, 2009). Women are the fastest
growing demographic (Smith, 2009). The fastest growing age group is among those age 26-34
(Smith, 2009). It is very evident the older members of Generation Y are making a big impact on
Facebook’s success. This study confirmed these findings showing the elder members of
Generation Y, like their Generation Y counterparts, use Facebook to maintain relationships.
Relationship Maintenance Behaviors on Facebook
Previous research on the youngest members of Generation Y is very similar to the
findings in this study. Pennington’s (2009) research found the number one motivator for using
Facebook was to keep in touch with friends, 94% of participants reported this. Research by
Steinfield and Lampe (2009) and Bryant and Marmo (2009) report the same findings; keeping in
touch with friends is the most common reason for using Facebook. 95% of respondents in this
study’s survey questionnaire reported keeping in touch with friends as their primary motivator
for Facebook use.
There are additional similarities among Generation Y users. Bryant and Marmo (2009)
also discovered surveillance was a popular motivator for college students to use Facebook. This
includes behaviors participants referred to as “Facebook stalking” meaning checking up on a
friend without letting them know. Surveillance was also an important aspect for the older
members of Generation Y, with 63% of them reporting it as a reason for use. The least common
motivator for college students using Facebook was online dating (Pennington, 2009; Steinfield &
Lampe, 2009). This survey also reported flirting and dating as the least common reason for
using the site.

As UGT described, Facebook users have shown different motivating factors for using the
site. Understanding user motivation for logging into Facebook provides insight into the
perceived benefits users feel. This may also offer information as to why users remain active
members of the site. The findings in this study when compared to previous research show all
Generation Y Facebook users are using the site for the same reasons.
Offline and Online Communication
Pennington (2009) found a large variance in number of online and offline friends. More
than half of Pennington’s (2009) survey participants reported having one to four close friends but
more than 300 Facebook friends. Steinfield and Lampe’s (2009) respondents reported having an
average of 276 Facebook friends, but only considered 100 of them people they actually knew.
This study found 63% of users reported having less than 10 close friends and 74% of respondents
had more than 201 Facebook friends. Over 80% of college student participants indicated that
most or all of their close friends are Facebook friends (Pennington, 2009). 88% of this study’s
participants reported the same. These findings implicate all members of Generation Y are using
Facebook in similar ways. It also shows similarities in respondents’ offline close friendships.
Bryant and Marmo (2009) examined the types of relationships maintained on Facebook
in detail. Their findings show respondents are connected with close friends, casual friends,
acquaintances, romantic partners, and outsiders but use different maintenance strategies
depending on the relationship. For example, respondents reported using Facebook to maintain
close friendships, but only reported Facebook as beneficial for these relationships if another form
of communication was also used. Participants suggested relationships with casual friends and
acquaintances were comfortably maintained on Facebook without any other form of
communication. Respondents also reported having romantic partners and romantic interests as
Facebook friends and using the site to flirt. Bryant and Marmo (2009) also found outsiders or
strangers were connected with these participants, but with more limited access to their profiles
than their close networks.
The older members of Generation Y surveyed report similar connections. The bulk of
their Facebook friends are close friends, casual friends, and acquaintances. They did report less
involvement with outsiders, or people they don’t know, than the younger members of Generation
Y previously surveyed reported.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
The findings of this study are conducive with previous research and statistics. The
surveyed members of Generation Y report Facebook is integrated into their daily lives. The
majority of respondents admit to logging into the site daily and using it as a tool to keep in touch
with friends and family. These results are conducive with both SIP and UGT showing
respondents can communicate and fulfill the gratification of relationship maintenance by using
Facebook. While text messaging, email, and instant messaging are their most used modes of
communication, Facebook has become an automatic daily occurrence. When compared to
previous research conducted by Steinfield and Lampe (2009), Pennington (2009), and Bryant and
Marmo (2009) on college student’s Facebook use, this collected data reports all members of
Generation Y are using the site in very similar ways.
Study Limitations
This study is not without limitations. First, the majority of invited participants knew the
researcher directly because this survey questionnaire used a snowball sample to find its
participants. Some of those invited knew the purpose of the intended study due to close contact
with the researcher. This could have affected their responses. Second, this study was based on
honest responses from participants. It was an anonymous, online questionnaire. There was no
system for checks and balances to guarantee participants met the demographic. This could have
skewed the data resulting in some participants not matching the intended sample. Lastly, a
snowball sample is not easily generalized to the mass public. Even though this study used
previous works for guidance, comparison, and duplication, it was a pilot study with the proposed
demographic. Further testing is needed to address the validity of these results.
Recommendations for Future Studies

The results of this study show Facebook has become a major aspect for the latter half of
Generation Y, just like the earliest members of the generation. Future research should continue
and duplicate this pilot study examining relationship maintenance and Facebook use by the latter
half Generation Y. Focus groups, in addition to a survey questionnaire, could solidify the sample
population meets the desired demographic. The addition of focus groups could expand the
acquired knowledge on what maintenance strategies participants use and explore additional
gratifications users seek which have not been explored by college students. For example, the
latter half of Generation Y could be parents using Facebook as a surveillance tool to keep track
of their children. Finally, future studies could further examine what relationship maintenance
strategies once performed offline are now fulfilled through CMC and Facebook.
Conclusion
The exponential growth of social networking makes it an area of continued study. This
study examined previous research on relationship maintenance, Generation Y, Facebook, and
friendship. It reinforced relevant theory because both SIP and UGT show relationships can
achieve the same relationship growth using CMC, gratifying the desire for relationship
maintenance through Facebook use. This study aimed to bridge the research gap in the way
Generation Y maintains relationships using Facebook. It documented research of a pilot study
on those born from 1976-1989 regarding Facebook behavior. This study determined while
members of Generation Y have different preferred modes of communication, all those studied
clearly use Facebook as a primary tool for relationship maintenance. The findings of this study
open the door for continued research in this area.

REFERENCES
Argyle, M., & Furnham, A. (1983). Sources of satisfaction and conflict in long-term
relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 481-493.
Armour, S. (2005. November 6). Generation y: They’ve arrived at work with a new attitude.
USA Today. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from
http://usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y-x-htm.
Ayers, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and perceived usage.
Communication Quarterly, 31, 62-67.
Beer, D. (2008). Social network(ing) sites…revisiting the story so far: A response to danah boyd
& Nicole Ellison. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13, 516-529.
Bell, R. A., Daly, J. A., & Gonzalez, C. (1987). Affinity maintenance in marriage and its
relationship to women’s marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49,
445-454.
Bennett, S. (2011, August 17). A short history of social media. Mediabistro.com. Retrieved
November 14, 2011 from http://www.mediabistro.com.
Berger, C. R., & Roloff, M. E. (1982). Thinking about friends and lovers. In M. E. Roloff & C.
R. Berger (eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 151-192). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Berscheid, E., & Peplau, A. (1983). The emerging science of relationships. In H. H. Kelley, E.
Berscheid, A. Christensen, H. H. Havery, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L.
A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close Relationships (pp. 1-19). San Francisco:
Freeman.
Blieszer, R., & Adams, R. G. (1992). Adult Friendship. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Boyd, B. (2006). The dotcomrade: The many faces of online friendship. The New Atlantis, 14.
boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.
Bryant, E., & Marmo, J. (2009). Relational Maintenance Strategies on Facebook. Conference
Papers -- National Communication Association, 1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Bryant, J. A., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Smallwood, A. M. K. (2006). IMing, text messaging, and
adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2),
article 10.
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou, 2nd ed., R. G. Smith (trans.), New York: Scribner’s.
Buber, M. (1965). Distance and relation. In Maurince Friedman, (ed.), The knowledge of man.
New York: Harper & Row.
Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1994). A social skills approach to relationship maintenance. In
D. J. Canary & L. Stafford, (Eds.), Communication and Relational Maintenance (pp. 61-
90). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Businessdirectory.com. (2011). Retrieved November 2, 2011 from

http://www.businessdirectory.com
Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive analysis of
relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends, and
others. Communication Research Reports, 10, 5-14.
Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine
interaction. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and Realtional
Maintenance, 3-22. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Caputo, J., Hazel, H., McMahon, C., & Dannels, D. (2002). Communicating effectively: Linking
thought and expression. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Elwood, C. (2009). 20th-century U.S. generations. Population Bulletin 64, 1.
Cheese, P. (2008, March 13). Netting the net generation. Businessweek.com.
Chidambaram, L. (1996). Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly,

20, 143-163.
Clark, N., Lee, S., & Boyer, L. (2007). A Place of Their Own: An Exploratory Study of College
Students' Uses of Facebook. Conference Papers -- International Communication
Association, 1.
Clemmitt, M. (2006, July 28). Cyber socializing. CQ Researcher, 16, 625-648.
Coley, T. (2006). Students and cyber communities. University of South Carolina.
Cummings, J. M., Lee, J. B., & Kraut, R. E. (2006) Communication technology and friendship
during the transition from high school to college. In R. E. Kraut, M. Brynin, S. Kiesler
(Eds.) Compters, Phones, and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technology (pp.
265-278). N.Y.: Oxford Press.
Dainton, M., Zelley, E., & Langan, E. (2003). Maintaining friendships throughout the lifespan.
In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining Relationships through
Communication: Relational, Contextual, and Cultural Variations, 79-102. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Davie, S. (2008, May 12). Gen y @ work. The Straits Times. Retrieved from
http://www.asiaone.com.
Dindia, K., & Canary, D.J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on relational
maintenance. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163-173.
Dindia, K. (2003). Definitions and perspectives on relational maintenance communication. In D.

J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.). Maintaining relationships through communication:
Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 1-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Donath, J. S., & boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4),
71-82.
Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

13, 231-251.
Duck, S. W. (1998). Relating to Others. Chicago, IL: Dorsey.
Ellis-Christensen, T. (2011, September 10). What is generation y? Wise Geek. Retrieved

September 23, 2011 from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-generation-y-htm.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12(4).
Facebook Statistics (2011). Retrieved September 21, 2011 from

http://www.facebook.com/statistics.
Finn, A., & Powers, W. G. (2002). The Value of Instrumental and Affective Communication
Skills in Different Relational Stages. Communication Quarterly, 50(2), 192-203.
Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K., & Rubin, R. B. (1998). Internet and face-to-face communication:
Not functional alternatives. Communication Quarterly, 46, 250-268.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment.
Human Communication Research, 27, 153-181.
Floyd, K. (2009). Interpersonal Communication: The Whole Story. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
French, D. (2005, November 21). Generation Y versus baby boomers. Furniture today.
Gardner, S. F. ( 2006, August 15). Preparing for the nexters. American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education.
Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Groves, R. M. (1996). How do we know what we think they think is really what they think? In
N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.). Answering Questions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hays, R. B. (1984). The development and maintenance of friendship. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 1, 75-98.
Junco, R., & Mastrodicasa, J. (2007). Connecting to the net generation: What higher education
professionals need to know about today’s students. National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators.
Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-

awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal o fSocial Psychology, 31, 177-192.
Kane, S. (2011). Generation y. About.com Guide. Retrieved November 14, 2011 from
http://www.about.com.
Katz, E. (1959). Mass communication research and the study of popular culture: An editorial
note on a possible future for this journal. Studies in Public Communication, 2, 1-6.
Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C., (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching
vs. social browsing. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 167-170). New York: ACM Press.
Lea, M. (1989). Factors underlying friendship: An analysis of responses on the acquaintance

description form in relation to Wright’s friendship model. Journal of social and personal
relationships, 6, 275-292.
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use
of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media and
Society, 10(3), 393-411.
McCrindle, M. (2010). The abc of xyz: Understanding the global generations. Sydney, AU:
University of New South Wales Press.
McQuail, D. (1984). With the benefit of hindsight: Reflections on uses and gratifications
research. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1, 177-193.
McQuail, D., Blumler, J. G., & Brown, J. R. (1972). The television audience: Revised
perspective. In D. McQuail (Ed.) Sociology of Mass Communications, 135-165.
Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin.
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Boston, MA: Pearson.
Newhagen, J., & Rafaeli, S. (1996). Why communication researchers should study the Internet:
A dialogue. Journal of Communication, 46, 4-13.
Park, N., Jin, B., & Jin, S. (2009). Motivations, Impression Management, and Self-Disclosure in
Social Network Sites. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-
36.
Parker, B. J. & Plank, R. E. (2000). A uses and gratifications perspective on the Internet as a new
information source. American Business Review, 18, 43-49.
Parks, M. R.; & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyberspace. Journal of Communication,
46, 80-97.
Parks, M. R. & Roberts, L. D. (1998). Making MOOsic: The development of personal

relationships on line and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 15, 517-537.
Pennington, N. (2009). What it Means to be a (Facebook) Friend: Navigating Friendship on

Social Network Sites. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.
Rabby, M. K. (2007). Relational Maintenance and the Influence of Commitment in Online and
Offline Relationships. Communication Studies, 58(3), 315-337.
Rabby, M. K. & Walther, J. B. (2003). Maintaining on-line relationships. In D. J. Canary &

M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational,
contextual and cultural variations (pp. 141–162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ramirez, Jr., A., & Broneck, K. (2003, May). IM me: Instant messaging as relational
maintenance and everyday communication. Conference Papers – International
Communication Association. San Diego, CA.
Ramirez, A., & Zhang, S. (2007). When online meets offline: The effect of modality switching
on relational communication. Communication Monographs, 74, 287-310.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Rosen, C. (2007, Summer). Virtual friendship and the new narcissism. The New Atlantis, pp. 15-
31.
Rubin, R., Rubin, A., Haridakis, P., & Piele, L. (2010). Communication research strategies and
sources. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication
& Society, 3, 3-37.
Safer, M. (2009, February 11). The “millenials” are coming. CBS News. Retrieved September 23,
2011 from http://cbsnews.com/stories.2007/11/08/60minutes.
Shapira, I. (2008, July 6). What comes next after generation X? The Washington Post.
Sheldon, P. (2008). Student favorite: Facebook and motives for its use. Southwestern Mass
Communication Journal, 23(2), 39-53.
Sheldon, P. (2009). Maintain or develop new relationships?. Rocky Mountain Communication

Review, 6(1), 51-56.
Sheldon, P., & Honeycutt, J. (2008). A Structural Equation Model of Oral Communication and
Facebook Use. Conference Papers -- National Communication Association, 1.
Sillars, A. L. & Scott, M. D. (1983). Interpersonal perception between intimates: An integrative

review. Human Communication Research, 10, 153-176.
Smith, C. (2011, June 24). The 17 most visited sites of 2011 ranked by Google. The Huffington
Post. Retrieved November 14, 2011 from http://www.thehuffingtonpost.com.
Smith, J. (2009, February 2). Fastest growing demographic on Facebook. Inside Facebook.
Retrieved November 3, 2011 from http://www.insidefacebook.com
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,
gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,
217-242.
Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2009). Connection Strategies: Relationship Formation and
Maintenance on Social Network Sites. Conference Papers -- International
Communication Association, 1-39. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social Networking on Facebook. Journal of the
Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 209-20.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1992). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069.
Tong, S., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too Much of a Good
Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on
Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(3), 531-549.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2008). Computer mediated communication: Social
interaction and the Internet. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Utz, S. (2000). Social information processing in MUDs: The development of friendships in

virtual worlds. Journal of Online Behavior, 1.
Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2009). The development of online and offline self-disclosure in
preadolescence and adolescence and their longitudinal effects on the quality of
friendships. Conference Papers -- International Communication Association, 1-36.
Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated communication. Western

Journal of Communication, 57, 381-398.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and

hyperpersonal interation. Communication Research, 23, 3-43.
Walther, J. B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In

Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses, C. A. Lin & D.
Atkin (eds.), 153-188. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Walther, J. B. & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated

interaction. Human Communication Research, 19, 50-88.
Wright, D. (1999). Personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach. Mountain View, CA:

Mayfield.
Wright, K. B., (2002) Social support within an on-line cancer community: An assessment of
emotional support, perceptions of advantages and disadvantages, and motives for using
the community from a communication perspective. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 30(3), 195-209.
Wright, K. B. (2004). On-line relational maintenance strategies and perceptions of partners

within exclusively internet-based and primarily internet-based relationships.
Communication Studies, 55, 239–253.
Wright, K., Craig, E., Cunningham, C., Igiel, M., & Ploeger, N. (2008). Will You (Still) Be My
Friend? Computer-Mediated Relational Maintenance on Facebook.com. Conference
Papers -- National Communication Association, 1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Wright, P. H. (1984). Self-referent motivation and the intrinsic quality of friendship. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 115-130.
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your feedback will be used to
complete my graduate school thesis. The survey should only take 5-10 minutes of your time.
Please answer all questions with total honesty. All participation is voluntary and your
answers will be completely anonymous.
1. Were you born during the years 1976-1989?

a. Yes
b. No
2. This survey will only use results from participants born from 1976-1989. If you do not
meet with basic qualification, you may close out the survey now. Thank you for your
time. If you were born from 1976-1989, please continue.
3. Please indicate your gender.
a. Male
b. Female
4. What forms of communication do you use to keep in contact with your close friends?
Check all that apply.
a. Face to face communication
b. Telephone
c. Texting, Email or Instant Messaging
d. Facebook
5. What form of communication do you use the most to keep in contact with your close
friends? Please choose one.
b. Telephone
d. Facebook
6. What form of communication do you use the least to keep in contact with your close
friends?
b. Telephone
d. Facebook
7. How long have you been a member of Facebook?
a. Less than 6 months
b. More than 6 months, but less than 1 year
c. More than 1 year, but less than 2 years
d. 2-3 years
e. More than 3 years
8. How often do you log in to Facebook?
a. Daily
b. Weekly
c. Monthly
d. A few times a year
9. How many close friends do you have?
a. 0-2
b. 3-5
c. 6-9
d. 10-15
e. 16 or more
10. How many Facebook friends do you have?
a. 0-50
b. 51-100
c. 101-150
d. 151-200
e. 201 or more
11. Are the people you indicated as your close friends also Facebook friends?
a. Yes, all of them
b. Yes, most of them
c. Yes, some of them
d. No, none of them
12. Who are your Facebook friends?
a. Close friends and relatives
b. Casual friends including those you interact with on occasion
c. Acquaintances including people you met once or interact with rarely
d. Romantic partners and interests including past and current
e. Outsiders including people you do not like or do not know
13. Please indicate what you use Facebook for. Check all that apply.
a. To keep in touch with friends and family
b. To make plans with friends
c. To flirt or find new love interests
d. To meet new friends
e. To track people and see what they are doing
f. To invite people to parties or gatherings
g. As a distraction or procrastination
h. As a source of information: email, phone numbers and addresses
i. To be part of the information loop
j. To play games
14. Please indicate the number one reason you use Facebook. Type your answer below.
15. How do you feel the quality of your relationships have been affected by using Facebook?
a. They are significantly stronger
b. They are mildly stronger
c. They are mildly weaker
d. They are significantly weaker
16. Please use the space below to indicate any additional information you wish to share about
using Facebook to maintain relationships. This question is optional.
Thank you for your time. Your survey is now complete.

2011 Relationship Maintenance and Facebook

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2011 Relationship Maintenance and Facebook

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RELATIONSHIP MAINTENANCE AND FACEBOOK

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Under the Supervision of Dr. Heather Crandall

Under the Mentorship of Dr. Kristine Hoover

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

Kelli Elise Kapp

Facebook in similar ways as reported in previous research.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8

CHAPTER 3: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 25

CHAPTER 4: THE STUDY 33

APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 51

The Importance of the Study

Communication has evolved as accessibility continues to grow with new technologies

most visited website on the Internet.

Relationship Maintenance: Personal relationships require a certain amount of maintenance

interdependence, equity, mutuality of relationship definition, the importance of authenticity, and

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC): Computer Mediated Communication refers to any

Lengel, & Tomic, 2008).

Organization of Remaining Chapters

It includes information on social networking on the Internet, Generation Y, friendship, and

relationship maintenance. The theoretical foundations and philosophical assumptions are

and recommendations for future research.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Y relative to relationship maintenance and technology has been conducted.

2008; Sheldon, 2009). Referring to a variety of behaviors, relationship maintenance includes

childhood friends (Pennington, 2009).

as it is defined in birth years and characteristics, friendship, and relationship maintenance.

This study is based on the theoretical foundations of Social Information Processing

of communication for various reasons by examining what and why.

Social Information Processing Theory

communication, but as messages continue to accumulate, relationship maintenance using CMC

achieved through face-to-face interaction (Walther, 1996).

Uses and Gratification Theory

following: diversion, personal relationship, personal identity, and surveillance (McQuail,

Internet as a continuum between mass communication and interpersonal communication

relationships with people they know (Coley, 2006; Sheldon, 2008).

phenomenological tradition in the field of communication theory. The phenomenological

conditions are fulfilled:

1. Congruence between our words and who we generally are.

2. Unconditional positive regard for the other person.

3. Listening with empathetic understanding.

relationships. Relationships require interdependence; each person in the relationship feels a

social media likely aids in the process.

Social Networking on the Internet

mediated communication as a way to communicate (Bryant, Sanders-Jackson, & Smallwood,

2006; Ellison et al, 2007).

Defining Social Network Sites

individuals to do the following: construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded

makes it ideal to study.

online and offline.

users the opportunity to interact, form, and maintain relationships online.

(Armour, 2005) or 1980-1995 (Safer, 2009).

Communication skills can be divided into two relationally-oriented classifications:

Instrumental communication involves persuasive, conversational, and narrative communication

different types of relationships. Their findings report instrumental communication is important

Powers, 2002). Understanding relational communication shows a heuristic importance in

relational movement, development, and maintenance.

acceptance, connectedness, inclusion, affiliation, satisfaction, and belonging that is helpful in

tangible and psychological purposes (Bryant & Marmo, 2009).

friendship involves companionship, consideration, communication, and affection. Lea (1989)

explains friendship as a relationship involving voluntary or unconstrained interaction where

only close relationships (Bryant & Marmo, 2009).